[chore] Update vertex_ai to vertex.ai by gyliu513 · Pull Request #1684 · open-telemetry/semantic-conventions

gyliu513 · 2024-12-14T15:35:03Z

Fixes #

This is a follow up for #1574 (comment)

Changes

Please provide a brief description of the changes here.

Note: if the PR is touching an area that is not listed in the existing areas, or the area does not have sufficient domain experts coverage, the PR might be tagged as experts needed and move slowly until experts are identified.

Merge requirement checklist

CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines followed.
Change log entry added, according to the guidelines in When to add a changelog entry.
- If your PR does not need a change log, start the PR title with [chore]
schema-next.yaml updated with changes to existing conventions.

lmolkova · 2024-12-15T22:45:55Z

Thanks @gyliu513 !

Please make sure to add changelog entry.

/cc @aabmass - wdyt about this rename?

gyliu513 · 2024-12-16T02:59:49Z

@lmolkova Done!

But seems the CI is reporting an compatibility issue:

Found 1 compatibility issues:
	enum attribute member 'gen_ai.system.vertex_ai' was removed
make: *** [Makefile:276: compatibility-check] Error 1

gyliu513 · 2024-12-16T03:51:41Z

              stability: experimental
              value: "openai"
              brief: 'OpenAI'
-            - id: vertex_ai


@lmolkova do you know if we can also need to mark vertex_ai as deprecated? if so, how to make it? This is a value and not an attribute, did not find any example for this, thanks!

gyliu513 · 2024-12-17T14:55:26Z

I will update https://github.com/open-telemetry/semantic-conventions/blob/main/schema-next.yaml after #1683 got merged.

aabmass · 2024-12-18T02:11:05Z

+            - id: vertex.ai
              stability: experimental
-              value: "vertex_ai"
+              value: "vertex.ai"


I can't find any evidence of just "Vertex" without "AI" in GCP's docs, so vertex_ai actually seems appropriate to me. I can't imagine any other vertex.* values.

If that reasoning holds water to keep it as vertex_ai, I can verify with the team.

I also believe we should not change this to be a namespace. Vertex AI seems to be the product name.

OK I re-read and thought about it, giving this is only changing the enum value all if fine.

aabmass · 2024-12-18T02:13:21Z

+            - id: vertex.ai
              stability: experimental
-              value: "vertex_ai"
+              value: "vertex.ai"


While we're here, should we prefix with gcp. like we have for some other vendors?

+1, we can name it as gcp.vertex.ai or google.vertex.ai

we're really inconsistent in semconv on prefixing things with cloud name (not intentionally). General issue - #608

E.g. we have spanner and it's ok since there is just one spanner DB.
We have gcp_pubsub for messaging because pubsub is too generic. We also have some gcp.* attributes and resources.

Both vertex.ai or vertext_ai are unique enough - they don't have to have a prefix similarly to spanner. If we add prefix, it should be gcp.

So what should we do:

spanner, vertex_ai, gcp_pubsub

spanner, vertex_ai, gcp.pubsub

gcp.spanner, gcp.vertex_ai, gcp.pubsub

gcp_spanner, gcp_vertex_ai, gcp_pubsub

...
?

Speaking from Azure side, we're likely to stay where we are: cosmosdb, eventhubs, az.ai.inference (use product name when it's unique enough, use az. namespace when it's not). Reasons: it's nice to be consistent, but some of these things are de-facto stable and are used wide enough to make breaking really problematic.

cc @jsuereth if he has any thoughts

There's also the cloud.platform values which look like azure_functions, gcp_cloud_functions .

I'm like 80% confident we can rename azure_functions to az.functions. Let me try

based on comments at #1719, seems we need to stick to vertex_ai, but in order to align with other LLM proviers, how about make some changes as follows:

vertex_ai to google.vertex_ai

gemini to google.gemini

@aabmass @joaopgrassi @lmolkova

I'd leave things as they are for now. We need a consistent strategy across all semconv (we have gcp_pubsub and spanner today) - it's tracked in #608

joaopgrassi

I'd leave the final to the experts and product folks, but to my understanding, Vertex AI is a trademark https://trademarks.justia.com/907/18/vertex-90718213.html, so making it vertex.ai is not correct.

I also looked and I think the addition of watson.ai in this PR was wrong #1574. The same applies, that is the product name, not a namespace.

Blocking it for now to avoid things getting merged.

joaopgrassi · 2024-12-30T15:39:25Z

+            - id: vertex.ai
              stability: experimental
-              value: "vertex_ai"
+              value: "vertex.ai"


I also believe we should not change this to be a namespace. Vertex AI seems to be the product name.

gyliu513 · 2024-12-30T16:13:20Z

@joaopgrassi watsonx is actually right, please check the following links:

watsonx.ai https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx-ai
watsonx.data https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx-data
watsonx.governance https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx-governance

joaopgrassi · 2024-12-31T10:00:16Z

Yes, I also checked those. The problem here is that I personally see the dot in the name as part of the brand name. In semconv a dot is to be used for namespacing things, so using the dot just because the brand name uses it is wrong IMO because it clashes with the deep namespace meaning the dot has in semconv.

joaopgrassi

Removing my blocker.

I got caught up and passed through me that this is just renaming the enum values of gen_ai.system. So this is fine.

What triggered my concern is that it can get us into iffy territory if we start using the product name "dot" in semconv, as we won't know its meaning.

It is of course fine if the dot is used for namespacing purposes (to add more attributes under it, or sub-namespaces).

joaopgrassi · 2025-01-03T09:15:10Z

+            - id: vertex.ai
              stability: experimental
-              value: "vertex_ai"
+              value: "vertex.ai"


OK I re-read and thought about it, giving this is only changing the enum value all if fine.

Signed-off-by: Guangya Liu <gyliu@ibm.com>

gyliu513 requested review from a team as code owners December 14, 2024 15:35

gyliu513 commented Dec 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

aabmass reviewed Dec 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

lmolkova mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2024

Change azure_ and az. to azure. across all conventions #1698

Merged

3 tasks

joaopgrassi requested changes Dec 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

joaopgrassi reviewed Jan 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

gyliu513 and others added 3 commits January 3, 2025 11:42

[chore] Update vertex_ai to vertex.ai

3179b34

Signed-off-by: Guangya Liu <gyliu@ibm.com>

Added changelog

61cb2e8

updated changelog to deprecation

3beb495

gyliu513 force-pushed the vertex branch from f37912f to 3beb495 Compare January 3, 2025 19:45

Merge branch 'main' into vertex

2528cec

gyliu513 mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2025

Adds mistral_ai as a gen_ai.system attribute value #1719

Merged

3 tasks

gyliu513 closed this Jan 9, 2025

gyliu513 deleted the vertex branch January 9, 2025 01:16

Conversation

gyliu513 commented Dec 14, 2024

Changes

Merge requirement checklist

Uh oh!

lmolkova commented Dec 15, 2024

Uh oh!

gyliu513 commented Dec 16, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gyliu513 commented Dec 17, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lmolkova Dec 18, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lmolkova Jan 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joaopgrassi left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gyliu513 commented Dec 30, 2024

Uh oh!

joaopgrassi commented Dec 31, 2024

Uh oh!

joaopgrassi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

gyliu513 commented Dec 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lmolkova Dec 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lmolkova Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

joaopgrassi left a comment •

edited

Loading